I would just like to see your opinions on what of the attrocities are worst

In my opinion it has got to be the atom bombs of the second world war or the fire bombing of Dresden due to amount of death and the lack of reason for such attacks and the fact they were state authorised

(Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
I would just like to see your opinions on what of the attrocities are worst

In my opinion it has got to be the atom bombs of the second world war or the fire bombing of Dresden due to amount of death and the lack of reason for such attacks and the fact they were state authorised

At least with those attacks you could argue they brought the war to a close more quickly, indirectly saving lives, with the dresden bombing it also reduced munitions production.

The worst: holocaust, genocide in darfur or uganda or many others I currently can't think of.

(Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
I would just like to see your opinions on what of the attrocities are worst

In my opinion it has got to be the atom bombs of the second world war or the fire bombing of Dresden due to amount of death and the lack of reason for such attacks and the fact they were state authorised

There was a very specific reason for the atom bomb attacks, actually; to end the Second World War. I'm not saying I agree with them though, of course! I mean - surely someone could have come up with a humane way to achieve the same ends?

(Original post by Golden Maverick)
At least with those attacks you could argue they brought the war to a close more quickly, indirectly saving lives, with the dresden bombing it also reduced munitions production.

The worst: holocaust, genocide in darfur or uganda or many others I currently can't think of.

The atomic bombs did nothing to end WWII, the war was over at that point Japan had surrendered but because the communication had been bombed so much they couldn't get the messages out to all the troops. Basically The atom Bombs was America's way of asserting their superiority.

There were no munitions factories in Dresden, no permenant or sizeable army base, there were three main industries in Dresden, none war related. I can't remember what they were but i will find the book I have with it in later. Dresden was a civilian city and furthermore it had thousands of POW in working camps, not concentration camps.

I agree that the holocaust and genocide in darfur and rwanda should be on the poll, you can't add to the poll after it has been set up can you. In fact I wold probably agree they are worse than any of the ones I have included on the poll

In my opinion it has got to be the atom bombs of the second world war or the fire bombing of Dresden due to amount of death and the lack of reason for such attacks and the fact they were state authorised

The atom bombs were right. They saved lives, what would you have them do? Send troops in the streets and fight hand to hand? Many more would have died. It was the most rational option at the time. Also whether they were authorised by a state is neither here nor there: states attacked Germany, was this wrong. Your argument is a state did it so its bad, which is of course nonsence.

(Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
The atomic bombs did nothing to end WWII, the war was over at that point Japan had surrendered but because the communication had been bombed so much they couldn't get the messages out to all the troops. Basically The atom Bombs was America's way of asserting their superiority.

I agree that the holocaust and genocide in darfur and rwanda should be on the poll, you can't add to the poll after it has been set up can you. In fact I wold probably agree they are worse than any of the ones I have included on the poll

From what I remember, the first bombing of Hiroshima would have an effect, if not to shorten the war with Japan then to let the Germans know of America's ability and willingness to use nuclear weapons.

However the second bombing of Nagasaki, in my view was completely unneccesary and was used more as an experiment.

The atomic bombs did nothing to end WWII, the war was over at that point Japan had surrendered but because the communication had been bombed so much they couldn't get the messages out to all the troops. Basically The atom Bombs was America's way of asserting their superiority.

Utter tripe, Japan wanted conditional surrender and had mentioned as much to the Soviets. The Allies wanted unconditional surrender. The Japanese had prepared well for civil defence even training young children how to kill a GI in suprise ambushes with knives etc.

There were no munitions factories in Dresden, no permenant or sizeable army base, there were three main industries in Dresden, none war related. I can't remember what they were but i will find the book I have with it in later. Dresden was a civilian city and furthermore it had thousands of POW in working camps, not concentration camps.

Dresden had plenty of factories that were used for wartime production. Dresden had air defence weapons so it was far from unarmed. Stalin had actually requested an attack on dresden because it was used as a staging area and marshalling yard for troops heading to the east. Its war, where civilian lives were cheap on both sides. Nobody moans about the bombings of coventry, london etc. If it wasnt for the Nazi's incompetance you can bet they would have done the same thing to us, they just didnt have the technological capability to do it.

Perhaps you should have asked the Londoners at the time what they thought about killing German civilians through aerial bombing at the time. I know you would find them adamant that the Germans got what they deserved. They started it, we finished it.

(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
Is it just me that thinks it rather insensitive to be ranking atrocities?

I fully understand your view and yes it could be viewed as being insensitive but part of the reason that I posted this was to make people think about the other attrocities that were needless and deadly and to sho that we cannot take the moral highground ourselves. I have seen so much **** written on this forum since the london bombings about how we should go and bomb so and so or that muslims should sent out of our country. i feel it is necessary to make people think about the attacks ina more objctive way.

I understand I will probably get lambasted for these comments but they need to be said

(Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
The atomic bombs did nothing to end WWII, the war was over at that point Japan had surrendered but because the communication had been bombed so much they couldn't get the messages out to all the troops. Basically The atom Bombs was America's way of asserting their superiority.

Actually, up until 4 days after the bombs hit Japan's military commanders were still planning suicide defenses. It was only when Hirohito intervened to state he could no longer stand the suffering of his people that the Supreme Council offered unconditional surrender. Incidentally, that was the first time the Emperor's voice was heard by the masses. I'm not claiming any of this makes the bombs morally acceptable, simply that it makes your point wrong.

(Original post by Golden Maverick)

From what I remember, the first bombing of Hiroshima would have an effect, if not to shorten the war with Japan then to let the Germans know of America's ability and willingness to use nuclear weapons.

The first atom bomb was dropped on 6th August, victory in Europe was declared on the 8th of May, with the last German forces surrendering to the Red Army on the 9th of May. The bombs weren't to prove anything to Germany, who were already beaten by that point. If there was a show of force it was for the benefit of Russia, and to wrap things up in the Pacific theatre before Russia could become involved.